Feral Jundi

   I am sorry, but this is unacceptable.  So all along, the Taliban have been paying more for it’s recruits than the Afghan Army has been paying theirs?  Who dropped the ball on this one, because this is huge in my book. For any strategists who would like to learn a quick lesson on war and economics, especially coming from one of us ‘evil security contractors’, the math is simple.  The locals will always go for the best deal possible, and if the Taliban are paying more, then of course they are going to join them.

   It reminds me of the latest GAO report on the State Department’s problem with trying hire enough supervisors to manage the WPPS crew.  If you pay so little for a position like this, what do you expect? Of course contractors are not going to sign up for such a thing.  I love the phrase, ‘pay peanuts and you get monkeys’.  Well in this case, the applicable phrase is that you ‘get what you pay for’.

   Not to mention the fact that every village and tribe out there is hedging their bets right now as to who will be in charge a year from now, five years from now, ten years from now, and etc.  If survival means working for their cousin up in the hills as a ‘little T’ or contract Taliban, and make a little money off the venture, then so be it.  Until the government of Afghanistan can show that it is not corrupt and that it is willing to actually pay their guys a decent salary, then of course these folks are gonna go for the better deal.

     The Afghan Army has to show capability as well, and if they lack motivation or discipline to accomplish the mission of killing the Taliban and company, then why would anyone want to join them? Success breeds success, and everyone likes a winner.

   Glad to see someone woke up and realized that this needed fixing. I think the Army will definitely see an uptick in recruits and in retention, and in turn, less recruits for the Taliban. Duh.

    The other question though is how long can we, I mean the Afghans, pay for these salaries?  Unlike Iraq with it’s oil, Afghanistan really has nothing to pay for anything. –Matt

——————————————————————

Pay increase for Afghan troops boosts interest

APPLICATIONS ARE ON THE RISE

Obama strategy depends on well-trained force

By Glenn KesslerThursday, December 10, 2009

KABUL — A recent pay increase for Afghan troops and police appears to have resulted in a surge of applicants, said the top U.S. military official for Afghan security training.

Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, citing Afghan statistics, said 2,659 Afghans had applied to join the security forces in the first seven days of this month, about half of the month’s recruiting objective. In the three previous months, recruiting fell short of targets, with only 830 applicants in September, he said.

President Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan, which calls for 30,000 U.S. reinforcements next year, depends heavily on the rapid development of a well-trained Afghan force that can begin to take over security from U.S. and NATO forces. Afghanistan has about 97,000 troops and 95,000 police officers, but they are poorly trained, have high turnover rates and are prone to corruption.

Much of the cost of training and paying Afghan forces is borne by the United States and other nations, with a nominal percentage contributed by the Afghan government. An Afghan soldier costs about $25,000 a year to train, equip and maintain, compared with $100,000 for a U.S. soldier, according to Caldwell’s staff.

Caldwell said that before the pay increase, projections suggested that the combined force strength would reach 216,000 in July 2011 — when Obama said he wants to begin withdrawing U.S. troops. Caldwell said the goal under the new strategy is to boost that figure by then to 282,000, a 50 percent increase over current levels.

“It’s clearly a challenge to get to that number, but that’s a goal we’re setting for ourselves,” he told reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. “Realistically, we think we’ll be between 250,000 and 280,000.”

A key issue in boosting the Afghan force is ensuring it achieves a balance of ethnic groups that better reflects the country’s makeup. Currently, for instance, Tajiks comprise 27 percent of the population but account for 41 percent of the officers, he said.

The Afghan government announced 10 days ago that it has significantly increased base pay and added several levels of combat pay, allowing it to better compete with the monthly payments that the radical Islamist Taliban insurgency offers its recruits. In Helmand province, for instance, an entry-level soldier earning $180 a month would now make $240 a month, according to Pentagon figures. In Kunduz, pay would double from $120 to $240 a month. Police pay, which previously lagged behind military salaries, was also raised closer to parity with the Taliban’s.

The Taliban offers $250 to $300 a month, said Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez, deputy commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan. But that is a static number, he said, while joining the Afghan army and police offers the prospect of promotions, pay increases and a sense of national identity.

Meanwhile, Rodriguez said a NATO-led attack Tuesday in the eastern province of Laghman “possibly” resulted in civilian deaths. “In the confusion, there was obviously a firefight, and we are investigating,” he said. Afghan forces participated in the attack, he said.

U.S. officials say reducing civilian casualties is essential to the new strategy’s success.

Story here.